Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 211666 2015-02-25	REPUBLIC v. ARLENE R. SORIANO PERALTA, J.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, We find that the imposition of interest in this case is unwarranted in view of the fact that as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipt[19] signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, petitioner was able to deposit with the trial court the amount representing the zonal value of the property before its taking. As often ruled by this Court, the award of interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in payment which, in effect, makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner.[20] However, when there is no delay in the payment of just compensation, We have not hesitated in deleting the imposition of interest thereon for the same is justified only in cases where delay has been sufficiently established.[21]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
There are Decisions[47] by this Court where it granted interest at 12% on the award. To clarify, this incremental interest is not granted on the computed just compensation. Rather, it is a penalty imposed for damages incurred by the landowner due to the delay in payment of just compensation. Thus, did the Court say: In some expropriation cases, the Court allowed the imposition of said interest [12%], the same was in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance.[48]
	GR No. 176692 2012-06-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VERONICA ATEGA NABLE BERSAMIN, J.
Pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657,[15] the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) promulgated DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1992, DAR AO No. 11, Series of 1994 (to amend AO No. 6), and DAR AO No. 5, Series of 1998 (to amend AO No. 11) ostensibly to translate the factors provided under Section 17 in a basic formula. The formulae embodied in these AOs have been used in computing the just compensation upon taking into account all the factors stated in Section 17, supra. It is relevant to note that the Court has consistently regarded reliance on the formulae under these AOs to be mandatory.[16]
	GR No. 190336 2012-06-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PAZ O. MONTALVAN SERENO, J.
There is no inherent inconsistency between (a) the primary jurisdiction of the DAR to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all questions involving the implementation of agrarian reform, including those of just compensation; and (b) the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC over all petitions for the determination of just compensation. "The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to judicial proceedings."[22] The jurisdiction of the SAC is not any less "original and exclusive," because the question is first passed upon by the DAR; as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination.[23] In LBP v. Escandor,[24] the Court further made the following distinctions: It is settled that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. In the exercise of their functions, the courts still have the final say on what the amount of just compensation will be.